If Uganda Has Oil It Must Need The Pentagon’s Democracy

If there is oil in Uganda, there must be bad people there who need the Pentagon to bring them democracy, a colleague observed. And indeed this is in part correct, there are some very bad people there. The Lords Resistance Army has plagued Uganda for 20 years, committing murders and atrocities, and kidnapping children to be child soldiers and sex slaves. The map below shows the historical areas in which the LRA operated. Much of the time the problem was ignored. But it has been a huge problem, creating hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people, especially children.

The US has not taken much notice of this until very recently. The Ugandan Army has stepped up its battle against the LRA in recent years, and the LRA has moved and expanded its operations into the DRC, as well as Sudan and the Central African Republic. In December 2008, the US Africa Command, AFRICOM, helped plan and arm a badly botched raid on the LRA, including contributing $1 million worth of fuel. Without the money for fuel, the raid could not have taken place. No effort was made to warn or defend the civilian population. The raid failed, the raiders came up empty handed, but the LRA attacked the civilian population in reprisal. It carried on a reign of terror throughout areas of the DRC that went on for weeks and months. Hundreds have been killed and maimed, children were kidnapped, and are still being kidnapped, and hundreds of thousands displaced. I wrote about it earlier, with links to accounts of what happened, Stability operations cause 900 civilian deaths, 100,000 displaced, miss target and Botched raid. Here is a map of LRA attacks outside Uganda, mostly in the DRC:

The East African, June 1 2009Republicans as well as Demo-crats are pressing President Barack Obama to help the Ugandan military destroy the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA).

Legislation introduced last week in the US Senate would require the Obama administration to move towards “eliminating the threat posed by the Lord’s Resistance Army.”

The proposal calls for military and other forms of US support for multilateral efforts to “apprehend or otherwise remove Joseph Kony and his top commanders from the battlefield and to disarm and demobilise Lord’s Resistance Army fighters.”

Introduced by key members of both major US political parties, the legislation would also provide $20 million in the coming year for humanitarian aid to civilians in Central Africa affected by LRA actions and for efforts to promote recovery and reconciliation in northern Uganda.

“The introduction of this Bill demonstrates the growing consensus on the need for greater US leadership to disarm top LRA leaders and permanently end this violence,” said Democratic Congressman James McGovern.

It is fashionable to blame conflict in Africa on poverty and other environmental factors,” Royce wrote in a blog he posts on his congressional website.

“But sometimes just getting rid of one person does make a big difference. History is full of captivating leaders with bad ideas who do great damage. It’s a lesson I learned from West Africa, where Liberian president Charles Taylor, ran a gangster regime that brought havoc to neighbouring Sierra Leone. After his hard-fought removal, the region is peaceful. Kony’s removal won’t guarantee peace — but it will make it possible.”

That approach is being endorsed by Human Rights Watch and 21 other non-governmental organisations in the US that are jointly backing the legislation known officially as the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act.

Thousands of young Americans have also taken up the cause of pushing the US government to help put an end to the atrocities that Kony’s forces have inflicted on civilians in Congo, Sudan and the Central African Republic as well as in Uganda.

This co-ordinated campaign by the US president’s political allies is likely to influence the Obama administration thinking. It increases the likelihood that the US Africa Command (Africom) will be ordered to help plan and execute a new Uganda-led offensive against the LRA.

Senator Russell Feingold said in introducing the anti-LRA legislation that the earlier “botched operation does not mean that we should just give up on the goal of ending the massacres and the threat to regional stability posed by this small rebel group.

Moreover, given that the US provided assistance and support for this operation at the request of the regional governments, we have a responsibility to help see this rebel war to its end.”

The LRA is an entirely appropriate target for the Ugandan government. I think everybody would be glad to see the last of the LRA. However, the presence of oil in Uganda and probably the DRC, plus the multitude of other minerals in the DRC makes any incursions there more complex. I doubt the Pentagon’s Africa Command will improve the democracy situation. You can see some some of the problem in this map of the DRC. It includes mineral resources, and the areas where both Rwanda and Uganda operate inside the DRC, ostensibly to go after the various militias originating in their countries, that now include the LRA. Though both Uganda and Rwanda rake in big profits from minerals mined in the DRC.

DRC map, coltan, minerals, with areas of Ugandan and Rwandan military activity marked

There is also the possibility of major oil finds in northwestern Kenya, bordering on northern Uganda and southeastern Sudan. So the LRA is very much in the way, wherever it is holed up or active. This more than any humanitarian concern is making it more urgent and important to get rid of them. AFRICOM is still wearing its humanitarian makeup in Northern Uganda. If you look at the map of Northern Uganda at the top of this post, Pader, Gulu, and Lira are all featured in the photos at the africom.mil photo gallery photos from Uganda. The one following is of US soldiers grading the road for a bridge crossing that will, among other things, help get goods to market at Lira. I so not wish to minimize the value of this and similar projects. They are a boon and blessing for the local people, until and unless they may be used against the local people. But humanitarian assistance is not the reason for AFRICOM. It would be better for development and democracy if such projects were funded and undertaken by civilian agencies. And the funding for these projects is peanuts compared to the military spending.

AROMA, Uganda - Local residents of Aroma, Uganda look on as service members from the U.S. Naval Mobile Construction Battalion-11, Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa, grade the area surrounding the Walela Cultvert Bridge on May 5, 2009. This was the final construction phase of a bridge that connects the main Lira road to the Aroma sub-county. Funded by Combined Joint Task Force - Horn of Africa, the Walela Bridge was constructed by 25 U.S. Navy construction engineers in partnership with their counterparts from the Uganda People’s Defense force. It will improve the lives of more than 60,000 people from three villages by enhancing their transportation ability, providing them with year-round access to the Lira market, and aiding in the delivery of humanitarian assistance supplies. (Photo by Technical Sergeant Dawn Price, CJTF-HOA)

There is another danger from US militarism in Uganda’s path. Back in February Charles Onyango Obbo wrote in Uganda’s Daily Monitor:

Two weeks ago The Sunday Times (of London) magazine had a striking photograph of Ugandan guards in Iraq. But even more telling was the short text that accompanied it. It reported that while Britain and America are planning on withdrawing their troops from Iraq, “the Ugandans are coming”.

The Ugandans, said The Sunday Times, were ‘desperate’ to be sent to Iraq, and already almost 10,000 of them are working as private security guards in Iraq, risking their lives to guard various American installations. We know this already, but then it gets quite interesting. It describes the war in Iraq as the ‘most privatised’ in history.

Over the last five years, America has dished out contracts worth about $100 billion. More and more of the 230,000 private-sector jobs related to the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, it said, have been outsourced to the Third World, what it called “the military equivalent of installing call centres in India”.

It discussed why American and British contractors moved into Uganda to hire guards for Iraq (we speak English, have surplus veterans from our many wars) but, ultimately they came because Uganda “is cheap”. Since the first lot of guards was sent in 2005, the paper reports, competition has driven wages down from $1,300 a month to around $600 today.

To understand how cheap our lives are, the $6000 compares with the $15,000 a British and American guard could make.
It would take a Ugandan two years to earn what a Brit or American makes in a month. It becomes very ironical: The Uganda government backs Zimbabwe President Robert Zimbabwe in his insane drive to destroy his once prosperous country, and Kampala officials and security officers own the firms that have a monopoly on exporting Ugandan guards to Iraq. However, most of the chaps who train the Ugandan Iraq guards are white instructors from Zimbabwe. Some of them, probably, were officers in the white supremacist army against which Mugabe and his guerrillas fought!

The story of Ugandan Iraq guards, however, is just in the first chapter of its telling. Even at $600 (before the Ugandan firm deducts its njawulo), these guards are already making more than they possibly could at home. Now that the American presence is winding down, by the end of next year, there might be little work for Third World guards in Iraq. If there is, the salaries could be so low, it would no longer be worth it.

When these 10,000 guards return home, then the reckoning will start. Their story might be much like that of the African veterans of World War II. The unintended effect of that war was that when the Africans returned home, they were inspired to join the struggle for independence. Their fear of the colonialist had gone. They had killed the mzungu in war, seen them wail in pain, and flee hot battles, and their allies. They realised that; ‘Hey, these guys are just like us’, and decided that there was nothing special that gave them the right to colonise us.

The Ugandans who are serving in Iraq have seen even a more dramatic humbling of the world’s sole superpower, America. If America can be brought to its knees by a rag tag bunch of dissidents, the UPDF – a comparatively rudimentary and unsophisticated force (its notable bush credentials notwithstanding) – must look very ordinary to them now.

President Yoweri Museveni is a not a fool, one reason he has been able to cling to power as long as he has. He realises that the guards are probably better trained than the average UPDF soldier. And, farther, that having so many people with their skills who are not intimidated by the UPDF returning home and not being within the control of the security services, is dangerous.

Just like the government has done with many LRA former rebels, it will incorporate the guards into the UPDF. That, however, has its risks. Even when they were badly treated, the Uganda guards in Iraq lived better, were paid more and more promptly, than many rank and file UPDF soldiers, some of whom still live in manyattas, and make do with tired sandals for boots. They could spread discontent, and that is hazardous. Also, UPDF cannot possibly absorb 10,000 guards, some of whom might not necessarily have the “correct” political and ethnic profile for the army.

The best option, therefore, would to create a Reserve Foreign Force in which all the former guards are placed, and get a trusted general who is on kateebe, to head it. That will partially solve the problem of control, but it won’t help in ensuring loyalty to the “Museveni way”, as the bulk of the Iraqi guards are unlikely to ever be dyed-in-the-wool NRM cadres.

The private need by the regime to reward insiders by letting them corner the Iraqi guards supply contracts could one day clash with its public need to keep power by monopolising the means and skills of war. Will the Museveni government avoid the fate of the British colonialists after WW II? Only time will tell.

Charles Onyango Obbo is an astute observer and journalist. As he points out, we only know the opening chapters of this story. The comments that follow the original text at the link are worth reading as well, and lend credence to Obbo’s observations. The oil discoveries, and competition for oil money will further complicate the tale. The presence of AFRICOM, which is already on quite friendly terms with Museveni, and the US habit of picking favorites and interfering with domestic politics, as it has been doing in Kenya and Somalia, is likely to play a part in the unfolding story.

It looks like Uganda is in for a bunch more partnering with AFRICOM. Obama just appointed/nominated the ambassador to Uganda, from the White House:

Jerry P. Lanier, Nominee for Ambassador to the Republic of Uganda

Jerry P. Lanier is a career diplomat with 26 years of service in the Department of State. He is currently the Foreign Policy Advisor for U.S. Africa Command headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany.
Prior to that, he was the Director of the Office of Regional and Security Affairs in the Africa Bureau at the State Department. Mr. Lanier has also served in the Philippines, Kenya, Thailand, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Ghana. At State he has served as the Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, country officer for the Republic of Korea, Legislative Management Officer for Africa, Deputy Director for the Office of West African Affairs, and Deputy Director for the Office Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh Affairs. He received his B.A. at Pembroke State University, his M.A. at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and served three years as lecturer in the history department of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

Mr. Lanier’s employment history looks like he has experience interfering with the internal affairs of other nations.

Related

19 Responses to “If Uganda Has Oil It Must Need The Pentagon’s Democracy”

“The introduction of this bill demonstrates the growing consensus on the need for greater U.S. leadership to disarm top LRA leaders and permanently end this violence,” said U.S. Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA).
……

Africa Faith and Justice Network just sent out the following appeal. I thought I should include it as a comment here, since it relates to the legislation mentioned above, and it raises important considerations:

We are faced with a difficult situation.

As you know, Africa Faith & Justice Network has a strong and vibrant campaign against AFRICOM, the U.S. military command for Africa. We are also firmly devoted to advocacy for development and restorative justice in northern Uganda. A few weeks ago, these issues came together in a bittersweet piece of legislation by the U.S. Congress.

While it provides crucial development aid and support for transitional justice, the new bill (S. 1067, H.R. 2478) also includes a statement of policy that would allow the U.S. military to pursue Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in D.R. Congo.

AFJN strongly supports many parts of the legislation; however, we believe that allowing AFRICOM to assist in an attack against the LRA is a recipe for disaster. Civilians are certain to be caught in the crossfire, abducted child soldiers will likely die, and northeastern Congo will remain a place of instability and violence.

Operation “Lightning Thunder,” the U.S.-supported Ugandan attack on the LRA in December of 2008 failed miserably. We have no reason to believe that this will be any different, or that the U.S. is justified in supporting a dictatorial regime’s armed forces. Even if Kony is captured, the U.S. will be repeating its Cold War folly of sacrificing long term democratic progress for short term stability.

For over two decades, war between the Lords Resistance Army (LRA) and the Government of Uganda (GoU) has ravaged the region of north and northeastern Uganda causing great suffering among the civilian population. Over the last number of years, the conflict has unfortunately spread to the Southern Sudan, DR Congo and Central African Republic. While several methods have been employed to bring and end to the conflict, all have failed to reach their goal of realizing peace.

To address this issue the “Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009” was introduced to the U.S. Senate on May 19th, 2009, detailing the way in which the United States wishes to engage with the conflict.

We the Acholi Religious Leaders Initiative (ARLPI) who have been tirelessly working to bring about sustainable peace and reconciliation throughout the region, wish to express our gratitude for the continued interest and support the U.S. has shown towards ending the suffering of those affected. Their support to initiatives such as the Juba Peace talks and the provision of humanitarian aid during the course of the conflict has not gone unnoticed. Such contributions have significantly improved the conditions in the region.

Of particular concern of bill however is Section 4: Requirement of a Regional Strategy for Disarming the LRA. This section implies that a military offensive may be immanent. The military option has been explored numerous times in the past, notably Operation North (1991), Operation Iron Fist (2002) and Operation Lightning Thunder (2008-2009).

Experience shows that despite such attempts to end the conflict, only dialogue can be attributed to the relative calm experienced in Northern Uganda since July of 2006 Military strategies launched against the LRA have time and again led to severe reprisal attacks on the innocent civilian community as illustrated by the recent 900 civilian deaths during Operation Lightning Thunder.

Not only has the cost of the military option been expensive regarding the loss of human life, the financial implications of war are also immense. The large sums of money required to carry out war drain the resources needed to bring about development and reconstruction of affected areas.

Therefore ARLPI would like to put forth the following recommendations which we feel will help to bring stability and development to the region:

When it comes to Section 4 of the bill, it should be the highest priority for any intervention to ensure the protection of civilians. Such a strategy however needs to be well thought through as in the past such has been done through the arming of civilian security organs which has led to further insecurity. Weapons provided to these organs often become integrated into the community and has allowed the LRA to increase their military strength during subsequent raids.
It must be acknowledged that there are numerous groups which are causing insecurity throughout the region. While the LRA is one said group, any strategy that is put in place must also address the other negative forces working in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, and Uganda who pose a threat to stability.
As the conflict has transformed into a regional issue, diplomatic engagement with regional stakeholders, namely those from Democratic Republic of Congo, Southern Sudan, Central African Republic, and Uganda is integral so that the needs and concerns of all affected are adequately addressed.
Furthermore, we feel that not all non-violent strategies have been explored adequately. While some have put forward that dialogue has failed, we argue that there were certain factors such as the stick and carrot approach, vested interests, presumptions, and the lack of coordination and communication between the LRA, GoU, and mediating parties did not provide a fruitful environment for dialogue to take place.

Time and again, issues of spoilers both regionally and internationally have played a role in frustrating any attempts at peace. For any regional strategy to be successful, we feel that such spoilers need to be investigated, made known if found guilty, and held accountable for their actions in the interest of sustainable peace.

It has been observed that past development programs in Northern Uganda have failed to make an impact on the ground due to various factors such as corruption. This raises concerns over PRDP implementation. If termination of assistance is realized as suggested in Section 6, A & D of the bill, an alternative plan needs to be put into place to ensure that support is maintained to the affected civilian population to prevent them from once again being victims due to the actions of others.

*Regarding Section 7 of the bill, any transitional justice mechanism which seeks to foster reconciliation must ensure participation all those who have been engaged in the conflict, including the LRA, GoU, and the civilian population. This is to ensure accountability for all actions taken during the conflict as well as to illustrate the commitment of all to the process of healing our community.

In conclusion, we applaud the commitment of the bill to bring about stability and development in the region. However, we as the Acholi religious leaders whose primary concern is the preservation of human life, advocate for dialogue and other non-violent strategies to be employed so that long term sustainable peace may be realized. Let us learn from the past experiences where we have seen that violence only breeds more violence.

Another nobody could have predicted moment, nobody could have predicted that with a military government, the military would kick the locals out and take control of newly discovered oil lands. I guess technically Uganda is not a military government, but it is run by a virtual dictator backed up by the UPDF. I wonder if and when they will turn against him. I think at present he advantages them more than disadvantaging. Sooner or later a lot of seasoned troops will be coming home from Iraq, Somalia, etc.

The expected oil revenues have been announced. $50 Billion currently, with $2 Billion a year to Uganda. Which means every nation is lining up to kiss Uganda’s a$$. The oil companies are Heritage (UK) and Tullow (Ireland), with other pending partners.

Moving the LRA out of the DRC was one of the headaches oil people had to solve, as the negotiation for the DRC side of the oil finds on Lake Albert haven’t been negotiated.

This video of the Kampala riots brings a preview of what’s to come and a review of Uganda’s relationship with Congo and Northern Uganda:http://ugandagenocide.info/?p=2069 (27 people were killed, hundreds arrested, journalists are under siege)

Uganda settled for relatively unfavourable terms from agreements she signed with companies currently working the huge oil fields discovered in western Uganda, according to a new report to be released this week. [http://www.carbonweb.org/index.asp]

According to the report which was compiled from data gleaned off copies of the original draft contracts eventually signed between the government and several oil companies, the oil companies are set to make “three times what’s internationally recognised as a fair profit”.

This is the first time the Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) are made public. Some of the MPs this week admitted to this newspaper that to-date they remain confused about whether Uganda got a good deal or was taken for a ride.

In an attempt to collaborate the findings, the figures and analysis in the report by Platform, a UK-based environment and governance watchdog, were provided by Sunday Monitor to the Petroleum Exploration and Production Department (PEPD) of the Energy ministry.

…

In particular, the report says, oil companies will reap exceptional profits relative to that of the government as oil prices rise. This is in part, say experts, because the government did not insist on terms allowing it to re-negotiate the terms in the event that world oil prices went up.

…

The Platform report says compared to similar oil production sharing agreements in Northern Iraq and Libya, Uganda got a worse deal.

“Indeed, Heritage’s agreement with the Kurdistan Regional Government [in northern Iraq is a better deal]. The KRG isn’t even a recognised state, doesn’t have legal authority to negotiate and remains under military occupation,” the report says arguing that often companies use state disadvantages to get the better of unsuspecting countries.

…

..the report says the claim – made by both the government and at least one of the oil companies (Tullow Oil) that Uganda will get 80 per cent or that the agreements “are the best in the world” are false.

also in this sunday’s daily monitor, a commentary by one of the report’s researchers explains

For over 10 years Ugandans have been asking two questions: Are the oil Production Sharing Agreements (PSA) signed by the government going to prove a good deal for the country; and can we avoid the ‘oil curse’ that has struck so often in Africa and the global south?

We are now very close to finally getting some answers. Regrettably, there is little cause for optimism. Platform’s research, revealed in Sunday Monitor today, shows that Tullow and Heritage Oil are set to reap huge – and patently excessive – profits in Uganda.

The oil agreements – analysed article by article – are dangerously skewed in favour of the international oil companies and represent a significant diminution of this country’s sovereign control over its own natural resource.

Despite public statements to the contrary, Uganda’s PSAs present exceptionally favourable terms to the companies. In particular, the deals fail to capture economic rent – the benefit to be gained from escalating oil prices – for the government.

The structure of the PSAs puts no limit on the profits the companies can make. Our research shows that when there’s a high oil price, it’s the company that gets an increased proportion of the extra rent. The proportion of take the state gains actually falls marginally with a higher oil price, while the return to the companies skyrockets.
Why are the figures we reveal today so different from what you’ve heard before?

Platform’s financial modelling takes into account the Net Present Value (NPV) of money – adopting precisely the methodology the oil companies use to predict their own profits. In simple terms, the value of money changes over time. It is worth more today than it is tomorrow, or five or 10 years from now.

Because if you have the money in your hands today, you can use it to invest and get a return on it from something else, be it US bonds, the London property market or building schools and hospitals.
How does this relate to PSAs?

Because cost recoverability in the oil contracts allows the companies to gobble up the majority of the profits from the first years of production to claim back the money they’ve invested.

So the point at which the state will be receiving its higher and highest take of revenue will be many years into the future – when the money, in real terms, is worth less. If we look at the revenues in cash terms of NPV over the whole period of the contract, then we get the real story of who is earning what and when.

We do not use crude and superficial figures like the companies do. The headline measure in our report is the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) the companies gain on their capital investment and costs. In other words, it’s the profit they make expressed as a percentage of what they’ve put into develop and run the oil fields.

From this we calculate the dollar return the companies will make. Companies investing in ‘high risk’ ventures like oil development generally look to make a 12-20 per cent IRR/profit rate. Since it’s internationally recognised that oil is a natural resource belonging to the country, any profit above 20 per cent is viewed as both a spectacular success for the companies, and an excessive profit earned at the expense of the host nation.

Under the current agreements, and using only medium-level oil prices for the next 25 years, Tullow and Heritage are set to be making an IRR of well over 30 per cent and even in excess of 40 per cent. Compared with comparable deals around the world, from northern Iraq to Libya, Uganda’s government has signed deals that leave it worse off in real cash terms.

…

..if the oil prices rise, it is the companies, not Uganda, which capture the ‘upside’ – the chance of ever-higher profits. At $70 Tullow makes a rate of return of 26.5 per cent, at $120 it is 36.3 per cent and at $180 the company makes 44.4 per cent The company’s profits rise at a steady gradient with increased prices.

Meanwhile, Uganda – which carried the risk of downside – fails to increase its proportion of total revenues. Instead, as prices rise, the state’s take plateaus at just over 75 per cent. In other words, Tullow can continue to take one quarter of oil revenues, whether the oil price is $100 or $250 – raking in enormous profits.

…

The ‘’perception’’ that Uganda’s PSAs are tough on the companies is just that: perception, not reality. And both sides are guilty of fostering that illusion.

The billions of dollars in pure profit which Tullow and Heritage will make over the next two decades bear no relationship to a ‘’fair return on their investments’’, while a range of other PSA provisions on the environment and legal responsibilities of the parties lead to serious cause for concern.

I do NOT believe, whoever, that the increased interest to get rid of Koni has to do with the oil. It simply has to do with the fact that donors are tired of M7 using the excuse of LRA to get more donor money. Can be wrong.

Moses, I appreciate your insight. I’m not certain you are correct. It has been my observation that the US at least, has no problem stopping aid payments they don’t want to make. And they seem to be showering Museveni with money for arms and training for the UPDF. The US is obsessesed with oil. The Africa Command was created to look after US oil interests by Bush and Cheney, who were both in the oil business. The Pentagon is the worlds largest oil consumer, and the same guy, Secretary of Defense Gates, is in charge of the Pentagon’s policies for Obama as he was for Bush and Cheney. So I wouldn’t dismiss the importance of oil. I’ll certainly be watching how events develop.

I don’t believe the US cares much one way or the other about Koni. If it did care it would have responded to the problem he represents long ago. He is either an inconvenient presence, or a convenient excuse for other US objectives.

It’s already a stretch to say that Bush or Cheney were involved in Iraq for personal profit motives with regard to oil company holdings. Bush was totally divested of interests in oil companies all the way back to 2000, Cheney a bit after that. But why for heavens sake would Robert Gates be going to bat for UK based oil companies in Uganda? Am I to understand that Gates is helping UK oil companies, because his former boss used to work in the oil industry, and Gates feels like he should honor the people who work in the same industry as his former boss (aka. the competitors of his former boss). Seems a stretch to me.

Blaming Bush and his connections to the oil industry was a good shtick while it lasted, but it’s really a tired trope now.

Bruce,
What you understand is entirely up to you and depends on your skills at reading and analysis. You appear to be responding to something written somewhere else. I didn’t say anything about Iraq or any specific oil companies. The US is interested in oil wherever it can find it. Africa has a lot of oil. Uganda has a large recent discovery and the prospect of more. The Pentagon is the largest consumer of oil in the world. The US wants to locate and secure oil resources wherever they may be in the world. It goes back to the Carter Doctrine, the meaning of which has been endorsed and expanded by all US Presidents since Carter, and as more oil has been discovered in more locations. Obama appears to be pursuing exactly the same policies as his predecessors.

Fair enough, however you may want to go back and read what you wrote, as you seem to be lacking in memory. You wrote that Africom exists to look after “US oil interests.” I thought that by “US interests” you meant interests in which the US or US companies have a financial stake. In Uganda no such interest exists, in fact, it is quite the contrary. European oil companies gaining new supplies is contrary to the interests of US oil companies and their owners. An increased supply results in lower prices. So either:

1. The US seeks to increase the supply of oil as much as possible (so long as that oil is not controlled by someone overtly hostile).
2. The US works to increase the profits of US oil firms and their owners.

These are in fact mutually exclusive, as I pointed out above. Based on your mention of the Carter Doctrine, it would seem you subscribe to the latter view. That being the case, why do you throw in mentions of Cheney, Gates and their former involvement in the oil industry? What are you suggesting? They don’t stand to personally profit from the interest in Uganda. Do you mean to say “they used to work in the oil business, so they know oil is important” – who doesn’t know that?

I think you throw in these references because they sound ominously suggestive, but without a personal interest past business relationships are neither here nor there.

To be clear, I agree the US has an interest in securing a reliable supply of oil. The need for oil drove Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. But what of it? Even if the US ended any involvement, China would only take it’s place. Constantly stating the US has an interest in oil is a truism. If you disagree with the US supplying the LRA, that’s something else. You can take action and influence congress to change such policies, but railing against the US interest in oil is simply a waste of breath.

TOP Government officials are apportioning themselves land in the oil-rich Albertine region in western Uganda, Parliament heard on Tuesday.

The MP for Buliisa, Stephen Biraahwa Mukitale, told the House that powerful people in government had taken surveyors to areas around the oil wells and availed titles to themselves.

He said he reported the matter to the resident district commissioner and the Police in Masindi, but no action had been taken.

Mukitale also expressed fear for his life. “I have been told that I am a nobody and that I should stop interfering with powerful people, or else, I will be crushed. I have come out so that if anything happens, you are aware,” he told MPs.

He said: “All the oil wells outside the national park in Buliisa have been claimed by these mafia.”

He said people are also scrambling for land in Kabolwa, Waiga, Bugana Butyaba and Kikonko villages.

Mukitale said there is connivance with insiders.

“What a coincidence that wherever they dash and buy off the land, a few months later a new well is discovered. They have informers in government, who tell them where the oil wells are,” Mukitale said.